【Flyer杀G作文组】2月18-19日作业Argument241-师大菜菜

师大菜菜UID: 2838404

下面这篇不用帮我改哈。
实在写不完了，打北美范文上的一篇范文敲了一篇，也挺有感觉的。


TOPIC: ARGUMENT241 - The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."
WORDS: 675
TIME: 00:16:43
DATE: 2011/2/19 20:06:59

This XYZ company memo recommends that XYZ continue to use Delany instead of Walsh as its personnel service for helping laid-off XYZ employee find new jobs. to support this recommendation the memo points out that 8 years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of XYZ's laid-off workers found new jobs within a new. The memo also points out that last year XYZ employees using Delany's services found jobs much more quickly than those who did not, and that the average Delany client found a job in six months, compared to nine months for the average Walsh client. The memo also mentions that Delany has more branch offices and a larger staff than Walsh. I find the memo's argument unconvincing for several reasons.

To begin with, Walsh's prior rate of placing laid-off XYZ employees is not necessarily a reliable indicator of what that rate would be now. Perhaps the placement rate 8 years ago was due to a general economic downturn or some other factor beyond Walsh's control. For that matter, perhaps the rate was relatively high among all placement services during that time period. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for Walsh's ostensibly low placement rate 8 years ago, and without convincing me that this rate was low to begin with, the memo's author cannot convince me on the basis of XYZ's past experience with Walsh that XYZ should favor Delany over Walsh.

The memo also makes two hasty assumptions about the benefits of Delany's services last year. One such assumption is that these services were in fact responsible for helping the laid-off XYZ employees who used those services find jobs more quickly. It is entirely possible that the comparative success of this group was due instead to their other aggressive job-seeking efforts, which might even have included using Walsh's services- in addition to Delany's. Also, the memo unfairly equates the speed with which one finds a job with job-seeking success. Common sense informs me that the effectiveness of a job search depends not only on how quickly one finds a job, but also on compensation, benefits, location, and type of work.

Furthermore, the difference in the two firms' overall placement time last year does not necessarily indicate that Delany would be the better choice to serve XYZ's laid-off employees. These employees might have particular skills or needs that are not representative of the two firms' clients in general. Besides, a single year's placement statistics hardly suffices to draw any firm conclusions. Last year might have been exceptional - perhaps due to some unusual event that is unlikely to reoccur, such as a major employer's move to an area that Delany serves, or out of an area that Walsh serves.

Finally, the fact that Delany has more branch offices and a larger staff than Walsh proves nothing in itself about which firm would be more effective in finding jobs for laid-off XYZ employees. Perhaps these employees generally look for jobs in geographic areas or industries outside of Delany's domain. Or perhaps the number of Delany staff members per office is actually lower than at Walsh. Either scenario, if true, would cause serious doubt on the memo's conclusion that XYZ should favor Delany over Walsh.

In sum, as it stands the recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it the memo's author must provide better evidence - perhaps from XYZ's records -- that Delany's services have consistently helped laid-off XYZ employees find jobs. Instead of attempting to convince me that Walsh provided a disservice to XYZ 8 years ago, the author should provide better evidence that Walsh's services would be inferior to Delany's in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, to better assess the recommendation it would be helpful to compare the number of staff members per office at the two firms, and the level of experience of those staff members. It would also be useful to know what sorts of skills laid-off XYZ employees possess, and which firm, Delany or Walsh, serves industries and area with more openings for people with those skills.